Sunday, October 17, 2010

God and Evidence

Over the past week, Jerry Coyne and P.Z. Myers  have been engaged in an argument by blog over whether it is even logically possible for there to be evidence for God (both agree that there isn't actual evidence; the disagreement is over whether anything could be evidence if it existed).   Myers has staked out some positions that seem dubious (for example, that the concept of God is too ill-defined for us to say what could constitute evidence for it: as Coyne points out, "evidence for God" normally means "evidence for an all-powerful, all-knowing supreme Being, and if there were evidence for such a Being,, it presumably would rule out some concepts of God and be compatible with others), and some that invite deeper consideration.

Myers raises what looks, at first glance, like a logical error: he argues that if evidence for God could appear, wouldn't this mean that all current religions that get along without such compelling empirical evidence must be false?   But while absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of absence (it depends on how likely an entity or phenomenon is to leave empirically detectable traces), obviously, a God Who intended to make His existence obvious is capable of producing evidence, over and over again, that no one could miss.  That we don't see (to cite some examples given by Coyne) routine miraculous healings in response to prayer (to one particular conception of God, and not to other gods or to other conceptions of God), or water being turned into wine by prophets empowered by this God, argues that if there is a God, He doesn't wish to make His existence blatantly obvious.  Therefore, a blatant miracle (say, a 900 foot tall apparition of Jesus visible to multitudes of independent witnesses -- which, pace Myers, doesn't seem by itself more out of character for some biblical depictions of God than a pillar of fire or a burning bush), or the sudden commencement of a consistent pattern of less blatant miracles, would be too obvious, too out of the character God has evinced over the last fourteen to twenty-four centuries (depending on which Abrahamic religion one is asking).  This would at least argue that the traditional monotheistic religions had been advancing mistaken ideas about God.  We'd have evidence of something, but it might not be God as any traditional religion conceived Him.

But perhaps this is, like Doug Adams' "Babel fish" argument for the non-existence of God, taking a philosophical point a bit too far.  Of course, both Myers and Coyne note that evidence for God might be interpreted in various ways.  Myers, for example, suggests that if he witnessed an unmistakable miracle, he'd be more likely to conclude that he was hallucinating than that he was reliably witnessing a miracle.  One might get around this by asking what would happen if Myers' observation was supported by other witnesses as well.  When Coyne originally raised this argument, several commentators to his post noted, much more explicitly than he had, that it would be very difficult to distinguish between an actual miracle and the use of unknown technology to simulate a miracle.  This is indeed my own response to the problem of evidence for God: as finite beings, any phenomenon that we can perceive and wrap our minds around will be, itself, a finite phenomenon.  The most parsimonious explanation for anything -- from accurate, detailed prophecy of the future to healing amputated limbs -- is unlikely to be an infinitely-powerful, all-knowing Being.  Laws of nature we don't understand are more parsimonious than an Author of natural law able to amend them or make exceptions to them at will.

And here I seem to find myself siding with Myers against Coyne.  Coyne posits a documented series of nature miracles performed by someone who looks like and claims to be Jesus, and asks:
Now you can say that this is just a big magic stunt, but there’s a lot of documentation—all those healed amputees, for instance.  Even using Hume’s criterion, isn’t it more parsimonious to say that there’s a God (and a Christian one, given the presence of Jesus!) rather than to assert that it was all an elaborate, hard-to-fathom magic trick or the concatenation of many enigmatic natural forces?
It seems to me that the question is, is it more parsimonious to infer a finite but powerful being (possibly using unknown technology) who quite possibly has in the past established himself as the Christian God, or to infer an actual, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Being when all you've seen is demonstrations of finite albeit great power?  Of course, awed by the impact of the events, and influenced by childhood upbringing, one might not be inclined to be rigorously parsimonious.  But I think the underlying principle remains.  Establishing the existence of God through the preponderance of evidence is not, I think, logically possible.

21 comments:

  1. Yeah it's a bit of an interesting discussion. The more telling question usually is asking a Theist 'what would you accept as evidence God doesn't exist?' More often than not they will say "nothing."

    Me personally I would start off with any number of biblical miracles. If the Cook Strait parted in such a way that people could walk between the North and South Islands of New Zealand, I would consider that pretty decent.
    Even better if some Holy Man predicted it (with a good level of precision) or better again, controlled it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would tend to agree more with Coyne. If there were a being who showed Herself capable of publically passing any test set to Her by any skeptic, you might still say "that doesn't prove absolute omnipotence," but I'd say that was -- in practical terms -- a distinction without a difference. If She can do anything we can possibly imagine, that's Goddish enough for me, in terms of power.

    It would be more difficult to see how one could prove benevolence, however.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Establishing the existence of God through the preponderance of evidence is not, I think, logically possible.

    If you are trying to establish the existence of God on the basis of a random miracle, then I agree with you that a natural explanation is inherently more parsimonious.

    But that's not where one would look to determine whether there is evidence for a god. For the purposes of determining whether the Christian God exists, there are two relevant alleged miracles: creation and the resurrection of Christ.

    A naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe is not inherently more parsimonious because we don't know what or who caused it. In fact, if you weigh the various possible explanations for the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, an eternal, transcendent, immaterial, all-powerful Mind is the simplest explanation that fits all the facts without further assumptions. If this universe consists of all nature, then the Creator would be supernatural, if the Big Bang marked the beginning of time, then the Creator would be eternal, and if the universe is all matter, then the Creator is immaterial.

    And the resurrection of Jesus has to be considered in that context, because the book of John starts out by describing Jesus as the logos--the transcendent Mind--that became flesh.

    Skeptical Jesus scholars have done back flips to give a naturalistic explanation of the facts supporting the resurrection because they can't deny the historical facts. How likely is it, for example, that everybody hallucinated when they saw Jesus, including Paul, who was a persecutor of the church and a very hostile witness? They have come up with all sorts of ad hoc explanations.

    It has always puzzled me when atheists say there is no evidence for God, but I think I understand it now (and correct me if I'm wrong). If they start out with the premise that nature is all there is, then of course the Big Bang and fine-tuning cannot be evidence of a Creator. It may be evidence for a multiverse or a cyclic universe, but not a Creator, because if nature is all there is then a supernatural Creator cannot logically exist.

    Likewise, if nature is all there is, then Jesus could not have risen from the dead because that would require supernatural power. So His followers may have hallucinated and someone may have stolen the body of Jesus, or there might be some other natural explanation that skeptics have not yet thought of. Because, of course, if nature is all there is, then there has to be a natural explanation.

    But this is circular reasoning--evidence for God is logically impossible when one starts out with the premise that nature is all there is. In that case, no matter how strongly the evidence points to God, the skeptic will regard it as evidence of something else and therefore conclude that there is no evidence for God.

    Some skeptics say that they would believe if they witnessed a major miracle, but why would a random miracle persuade them? There could have been a natural explanation, and even if we manage to rule that out, how do we know which god performed the miracle? It could have been Odin.

    The resurrection of Jesus, on the other hand, is a major miracle with great theological significance. If it happened, then it proves that the Christian God exists.

    But if miracles happened all the time, then this event would tell us nothing. It is only evidence for God because dead people do not come back to life.

    So it is definitely possible to establish the existence of God by the preponderance of the evidence--if not beyond a reasonable doubt--even if it's not possible to conclusively prove His existence. Our finite nature makes that impossible. But that's why it's called "faith"--it never reaches the 100% certainty point in this life. It's the same principle that leads scientists to talk about "theories" regardless of how much evidence supports them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello again, Anette,

    Skeptical Jesus scholars have done back flips to give a naturalistic explanation of the facts supporting the resurrection because they can't deny the historical facts.

    What are the historical facts, as opposed to the partisan testimonies? I have no trouble saying it is a historical fact that within a generation of Jesus' crucifixion there was a Christian movement convinced he had returned to life. But I don't see why I can't deny that five hundred people saw him in his resurrected body, because there is only partisan testimony to that.


    It has always puzzled me when atheists say there is no evidence for God, but I think I understand it now (and correct me if I'm wrong). If they start out with the premise that nature is all there is, then of course the Big Bang and fine-tuning cannot be evidence of a Creator.

    Speaking only for myself obviously, but that isn't my reasoning. I don't rule out the logical possibility that a creator may exist (or that Christianity is true). I'd say the fine-tuning argument is evidence for such a creator, but it isn't evidence that I find convincing (as partisan testimony of Christian miracles is evidence for Christianity, but isn't evidence I find convincing).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anette, my point that evidence for God is logically impossible does not require the assumption that God is impossible, or that the supernatural does not exist (defining "supernatural" is another problem: how do you delimit "supernatural" from "natural, given the nature of an unknown cause or Entity?").

    My point is this: human beings are finite creatures. Our experiences are finite experiences. Even if God temporarily endowed us with infinite powers of perception and understanding, once we returned to our normal human state we'd have no way to retain or comprehend the evidence we'd perceived in that state. So all evidence we have is limited to finite phenomena that cannot require infinite power and capability to explain. Raising the dead would require great but finite power (for that matter, mass hallucinations of a resurrected Jesus would be perhaps vastly but certainly not infinitely improbable).

    Any humanly possible observation or set of observations can be explained without invoking infinite power, infinite knowledge, and infinite benevolence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Jeffrey,

    Speaking only for myself obviously, but that isn't my reasoning. I don't rule out the logical possibility that a creator may exist (or that Christianity is true). I'd say the fine-tuning argument is evidence for such a creator, but it isn't evidence that I find convincing (as partisan testimony of Christian miracles is evidence for Christianity, but isn't evidence I find convincing).

    I apologize for the sweeping generalization, but I felt like I had just had an Eureka! moment, and I had to share it with the world (or at least the parts of the world that read this blog).

    I've heard so many atheists say that there is no evidence for the existence of God that I was starting to get the impression that it's universal. Jerry Coyne and P. Z. Myers say it matter-of-factly like it's basic atheist knowledge. And I just never understood why that should be the case.

    But now I think I understand. Since atheists don't believe God exists, they (most of them) do not see the evidence theists use for God as evidence for God at all. For example, the universe emerging out of nothing at the beginning of time is evidence for something, but it's not evidence for an eternal First Cause who created ex nihilo. Likewise, the fine-tuning of the universe, which led astrophysicist Michael Turner to say, "The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bulls eye one millimeter in diameter on the other side" is surely evidence for something--like maybe an infinite number of universes--but it's not evidence for an Intelligent Creator.

    And although atheist New Testament scholar Gerd Ludemann said, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ," that is not evidence that God exists and raised Jesus from the dead. It may, however, be evidence that they all--Peter, James the skeptical brother of Jesus, Paul the persecutor of the church, and all the five hundred mentioned in 1 Corinthians--hallucinated.

    So an atheist can argue that there is no evidence for God whatsoever. All of it is evidence for something else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What are the historical facts, as opposed to the partisan testimonies? I have no trouble saying it is a historical fact that within a generation of Jesus' crucifixion there was a Christian movement convinced he had returned to life. But I don't see why I can't deny that five hundred people saw him in his resurrected body, because there is only partisan testimony to that.

    Although I'm elaborating in more detail on my blog, most non-partisan historians agree on the following four facts: First, Jesus was buried in the tomb of a member of the Sanhedrin named Joseph of Arimathea. This is significant because it means that the location of the tomb was known and it would have been easy for the Jewish authorities to produce a body and put the matter to rest. But instead, the Jews claimed that the disciples stole the body.

    Second, His tomb was found empty by a group of His women followers on the Sunday after His crucifixion. This is significant under the criterion of embarrassment, which states that if something is embarrassing it is more likely to be historically true. And since women were not considered trustworthy witnesses in first century Palestine, there would be no reason to include this fact unless women really did discover the empty tomb.

    Third, He appeared postmortem to people, many times and in many different circumstances. As I mentioned, atheist Ludemann agrees with this. It is almost universally accepted among historians.

    Fourth, the followers of Jesus believed that He has risen from the dead, and that was the reason for the birth of the church in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. They were willing to give their lives for their faith that God raised Jesus from the dead.

    As for the five hundred, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:6: "After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep." Most of them were still alive when Paul wrote this, and the idea was that they would be witnesses to what they had seen.

    There's a lot more to be said about all that, but suffice it to say that the evidence for the resurrection is very strong. Ludemann's explanation (hallucination) is an attempt to psychoanalyze people who lived 2000 years ago and it betrays profound ignorance of hallucinations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steven,

    Anette, my point that evidence for God is logically impossible does not require the assumption that God is impossible, or that the supernatural does not exist (defining "supernatural" is another problem: how do you delimit "supernatural" from "natural, given the nature of an unknown cause or Entity?").

    I know that you are not saying that it is logically impossible for God to exist; you appear to be saying that it is impossible for us to know that He exists, and that it is impossible to have evidence of His existence. Is that correct?

    I agree that it is impossible to know that God exists (but disagree that it's impossible to have evidence of His existence--unless you're talking about conclusive evidence). The Bible seems to agree that it is impossible for us to know God exists, which is why the word "faith" is always used. For example, in John 20:26, Jesus gives Thomas what amounts to proof of His resurrection. "Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." But He still tells him to believe. So even in that situation, Thomas has faith, not knowledge.

    However, that is not to say that Thomas did not get evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. Of course he did, unless you define evidence as conclusive proof or you presuppose naturalism.

    Any humanly possible observation or set of observations can be explained without invoking infinite power, infinite knowledge, and infinite benevolence.

    Yes, but that doesn't mean it's a good explanation. It is possible that my mind is the only thing that exists and that I am imagining everything else, but that's not a very good explanation of reality. Why should I accept something as true just because it's possible? It makes more sense to believe whatever has most explanatory power.

    Are you saying that a natural explanation is always most parsimonious? If so, I'm curious as to whether you read the debate between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman. Craig gives a response to Hume's argument (also put forth by Ehrman) that miracles are inherently improbable. Craig says about John Earman’s book, Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles:

    "This Professor Earman is not a Christian; in fact, he’s an agnostic. He doesn’t even believe God exists. Nevertheless, you see what he thinks of Hume’s argument: it’s not merely a failure, it is an abject failure. That is to say, it is demonstrably, irremediably, hopelessly fallacious."

    Craig then uses probability theory to demonstrate that a miracle is not necessarily unlikely, depending on the background information and specific evidence. So Hume's argument on miracles has been refuted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anette Acker replied to me:

    I know that you are not saying that it is logically impossible for God to exist; you appear to be saying that it is impossible for us to know that He exists, and that it is impossible to have evidence of His existence. Is that correct?

    I would say, not that it is impossible to have evidence of God, but that it is impossible to have compelling evidence. And my point was that a miracle itself would not be compelling evidence. I don't think you have to assume that a miracle could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to hold that view, much less indulge in solipsism to hold that view; I don't think you even have to hold the view that particular observations of the miracle are hallucinations. All you need to do is to note that, e.g. if we had compelling reason to suppose that someone was raised from the dead, that would be evidence of the power to raise someone from the dead -- which is impressive but not unlimited power.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steven,

    All you need to do is to note that, e.g. if we had compelling reason to suppose that someone was raised from the dead, that would be evidence of the power to raise someone from the dead -- which is impressive but not unlimited power.

    I agree with you that a random miracle (even someone coming back from the dead) would not necessarily be compelling evidence of God. But the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus is different because of the context. He was sentenced to death for blasphemy for answering the question, "Are you the Son of God," in the affirmative and making reference to Daniel 7:13.

    This incident is recounted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in slightly different ways so it meets the criterion of "multiple attestation," and it meets the criterion of "embarrassment" because Jesus was crucified for blasphemy in a particularly shameful way. It also meets the criterion of "dissimilarity" because Jesus used the label "the Son of Man" (a reference to Daniel 7:13) throughout the Gospels but the label is not used in the rest of the NT books.

    So in the context of Jesus claiming to be the Son of God, the evidence for His resurrection is compelling evidence for the existence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "This incident is recounted in Matthew, Mark, and Luke in slightly different ways so it meets the criterion of "multiple attestation,...."

    It is well established that the similarity between the "synoptic Gosphels is the product of them haveing been copied from an earlier "Q" (Quell/ Source) document.

    "and it meets the criterion of "embarrassment" because Jesus was crucified for blasphemy in a particularly shameful way."

    Actually, writers of the gospel interpereted some old Testament writings to predict that this saviour would be shamed and treated in an embarrasing manner. The story is evidence of nothing other than it is a story.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Froggie. How have you been?

    It is well established that the similarity between the "synoptic Gosphels is the product of them haveing been copied from an earlier "Q" (Quell/ Source) document.

    Q is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the parts that are similar in Matthew and Luke but do not exist in Mark. It has not been well established that Q exists. It is simply considered the best explanation.

    However, there are minor discrepancies between the three synoptic Gospels. For example, what group of women discovered the empty tomb? If the authors had copied each other (or used the same source) why the discrepancies?

    Actually, writers of the gospel interpereted some old Testament writings to predict that this saviour would be shamed and treated in an embarrasing manner. The story is evidence of nothing other than it is a story.

    Yes, Isaiah 53 describes Him in this way, but that is a beautifully written passage that would be quite different to see lived out in a real life. That is, people avoid shameful situations and associations.

    The sentence of blasphemy for making Himself equal to God would have been very shameful to the Jews, who were strongly monotheistic since they were the first monotheistic religion.

    And you see in Matthew 26:69-75, Mark 14:66-72, Luke 22:54-62, and John 18:25-27 how Peter felt about being associated with Jesus at that particular moment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. On the subject of miracles, have you thought about what a miracle it is that the human mind can comprehend the universe mathematically and scientifically? To me, that is evidence of design in and of itself, and if miracles were constantly happening, science would be impossible. The laws of nature have to be predictable.

    BathTub and Jeffrey both said that they would believe if they witnessed a miracle, but God would then have to do a miracle for each of them and everybody else who would believe if they saw a miracle. And since it is human nature to forget spectacular answers to prayer, God would have to keep doing miracles regularly. Pretty soon the laws of nature would be broken left and right. (And P. Z. Myers would remain skeptical, so what would God have to do to reach him?)

    Instead, the laws of nature are predictable, but any one of us can examine the historical evidence for one major, theologically significant miracle: the resurrection of Christ. And miracles still happen, but the Bible describes ordered spiritual laws that govern them (John 15:7, James 5:16). So they are rare but not impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BathTub,

    I don't know if you're still reading this, but I would like to reply to this question:

    The more telling question usually is asking a Theist 'what would you accept as evidence God doesn't exist?' More often than not they will say "nothing."

    This is a completely hypothetical question for me at this point because I have carefully examined the arguments for and against the existence of God (and the biblical God specifically) and in my mind the existence of God has far more explanatory power. You are right that nothing would convince me at this point, but that is because the evidence is so strong, both intellectually, experientially, and intuitively.

    That's not to say that I don't think atheism is intellectually defensible--I certainly think it is, and for the reasons I gave Jeffrey, I also understand why it is possible for an atheist to honestly believe that there is no evidence for God. But I think it is an inaccurate worldview that requires a naturalistic bias.

    But in case you have concluded that I have confirmation bias since nothing could change my mind, I'll tell you how I came to conclude that YEC is false. Since I am an evangelical Christian, I did seriously consider it (although I know that God communicates figuratively as well as literally, so I've never believed that a literal interpretation was necessary).

    But to summarize the reason why I think it's false, it's because I have not yet seen anyone defend it without logical fallacies or blatant presuppositions. And none of the serious apologists, like Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig, are YECs. So for that reason, I have concluded that it is impossible to defend it rationally. And if nobody can defend it rationally, it is most likely not true.

    Luke Muehlhauser of Common Sense Atheism said about William Lane Craig: "As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists." Then he gives a list of over twenty debates, all of which Craig won, and divides them into three categories: the good, the bad, and the ugly, depending on how badly Craig destroyed the opposition.

    The explanation Muehlhauser and other atheists give is that Craig is just a superior debater and the atheists are unprepared. And although he is certainly a great debater, I would be really impressed if he could defend YEC and still win. But he has never even tried because he is not a YEC.

    My conclusion is that Craig wins because he has superior arguments, and he has superior arguments because he supports a position that is more intellectually defensible than atheism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Correction: Muehlhauser didn't say that Craig won all the debates in the list. He said that he might have lost two of them: Why I am a Christian/Atheist, and Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Unfortunately winning debates doesn't mean anything. Kent Hovind would say that he's won all/most of his debates too.

    Debates aren't about Truth, they are about politics/presentation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I want to clarify what I was saying in the previous comment. The author of Hume's Abject Failure and WLC are using Bayes Theorem to demonstrate that Hume's refutation of miracles was fallacious. I don't know if I stated that clearly before.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I guess I misunderstood your point a little, I don't subject myself to that many Hovind Debates. But I think like WLC he does actually win quite a few for most of the same reasons as WLC does. With the added bonus of Kent is funnier (IMO).

    But as before, obviously Luke/Atheists think WLC won the debate because he was a better debater, not because he was right, or they wouldn't still be Atheists.

    I've read most of Luke's comments about the debates and they do usually come down to things like 'the person was unprepared' and 'person didn't respond to what was being discussed'. I wouldn't debate WLC, but I would debate Ray. I know enough of his techniques that I think I could take him. It's why he never willingly debates people that want to debate him.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I guess I misunderstood your point a little, I don't subject myself to that many Hovind Debates. But I think like WLC he does actually win quite a few for most of the same reasons as WLC does. With the added bonus of Kent is funnier (IMO).

    So he wins debates defending YEC? I've never listened to any of his debates but that's interesting. Does he win because his arguments are airtight or because he's well-organized and articulate? I think WLC wins because his arguments are airtight.

    But as before, obviously Luke/Atheists think WLC won the debate because he was a better debater, not because he was right, or they wouldn't still be Atheists.

    I think WLC definitely does influence atheists based on the questions he gets on his Reasonable Faith website. A number of them do indicate that they are less strongly atheistic because of him.

    But people are not theists or atheists for purely rational reasons. It's a combination of reason, will, and emotions, in different proportions for different people. It's hard to say exactly why someone rejects an argument unless they refute it.

    Although I agree with you that Luke doesn't think WLC is right, he has not refuted his arguments. Nobody has, for example, refuted WLC's Bayes Theorem argument against Ehrman. And he is right that a number of the atheists misunderstand WLC's moral law argument (thinking that it means morality requires belief in God, when it only requires the existence of God), Luke himself does not refute the actual argument. He says:

    "I cannot tell you how many times I have seen the atheist confronted with this argument and refuse to answer. Usually they do not even seem to understand the argument. They protest “But many atheists are good people!” or “But Biblical morality is no good! Have you read the Bible?”

    "To this, Craig can only shake his head and say, “No, you’ve completely missed the point…” And he’s right. Atheists often don’t know even the first chess move in response to the moral argument."

    But Luke never tells us what the first chess move is. I don't know what it is.

    I wouldn't debate WLC, but I would debate Ray. I know enough of his techniques that I think I could take him. It's why he never willingly debates people that want to debate him.

    WLC also uses the same arguments. In fact, I just listened to an audio of a debate between him and Gerd Ludemann from 1995 on the resurrection of Christ, and WLC used exactly the same arguments that he uses on his website and in his book that I have. So all his opponents have to do is refute his arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. BathTub,

    I did a search on Kent Hovind and watched part of a couple of debates. He is certainly glib, but I'm not hugely impressed with his debating skills. The first thing he did during the debate with Hugh Ross was to accuse him of heresy. I don't know what he hoped to accomplish with that, but whatever it was, it failed, because the moderator and the Christian audience seemed suspicious of both him and his position.

    He did better in the debate against Michael Shermer, where he had an engaging style and a rapport with the audience (at a secular university). Whereas Hovind had the audience laughing every few minutes, Shermer tried to be funny a couple of times and got silence from the audience. So I think that kind of thing is what people are referring to when they say that Hovind wins debates.

    As for whether his logic is airtight, this speaks for itself:

    I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.[53]
    *NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

    1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
    2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
    3. Matter created life by itself.
    4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
    5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).


    He is nothing like WLC. In fact, two people could not be more different.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jeffrey,

    I think you tried to reply to me, but it didn't post (it showed up in my email, though). I've had the same problem with Blogger recently. I didn't want you to think that I was ignoring you.

    But as for your points about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, I'm currently writing a series of posts about it on my blog, if that is something that interests you. (There's too much to say to repeat here.)

    ReplyDelete